0 Голоса «за»0 Голоса «против»

Просмотров: 512 стр.Apr 01, 2017

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

© All Rights Reserved

Просмотров: 5

© All Rights Reserved

- Definition of Fines
- Deconvolution of Surface Motions from the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence for use in Nonlinear Effective Stress Site Response Analyses
- PHIVOLCS Earthquake Intensity Scale.docx
- Earthquakes
- Characteristics of Ground Motions Response Spectra From Recent Large Earthquakes
- Abstract ShanShan
- RCC Quations and Answer
- Clay
- Gempa bumi
- Earth Quake Architecture
- 0604610_Sonic Drilling How Does It Work
- 12_Fathani Etal -Final Updated1
- Extended Abstract 3.44.doc
- Kashmir Earthquake
- 29 Japan Cap1Road Code
- Soil Stabilization.2
- Chapter 5 Faults
- Survey About Earthquakes
- Disaster Management
- Attenuation Relations of Strong Ground Motion in Japan

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 12

DOI 10.1007/s11069-012-0158-9

ORIGINAL PAPER

Gateway city to Northeastern India

Received: 30 October 2009 / Accepted: 20 March 2012 / Published online: 21 April 2012

Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Abstract Guwahati city is a major city in the northeastern region of India, which is

growing rapidly in every aspect, particularly the major infrastructures like sports complex,

educational institutions, flyovers, multiplex halls, etc. Two great earthquakes struck this

region in 1897 and 1950, and large-scale liquefaction was reported in and around the

Guwahati city. However, a detailed microzonation study for liquefaction is not available so

far and is taken up accordingly. The liquefaction potential of the Guwahati city is estimated

using hundred boreholes data located at different places of city with a design peak ground

acceleration of 0.36 g. The results are presented in the form of factor of safety contours at

several depths below the ground surface. These contour maps indicate that most of the sites

in Guwahati city area are susceptible to liquefaction and hence this aspect has to be

considered in earthquake-resistant design of foundations/structures in Guwahati city.

1 Introduction

Soil liquefaction is a major design problem for various geotechnical structures including

large earth structures such as mine tailings, impoundments, and earth dams. Liquefaction-

induced ground failures include loss of bearing strength, lateral spreading, and flow fail-

ures, which may cause many engineering problems such as foundation failures, damage to

utilities, slope failures, land slides, and large displacements of earth dams. Some of the

R. Ayothiraman (&)

Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi 110016, India

e-mail: araman@civil.iitd.ac.in

S. T. G. Raghu Kanth

Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai 600036, India

S. Sreelatha

Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati,

Guwahati 781039, Assam, India

123

450 Nat Hazards (2012) 63:449460

spectacular examples of earthquake damage have occurred when soil deposits have lost

their strength and appear to flow as fluids due to soil liquefaction during earthquakes. The

1964 Good Friday earthquake (M = 9.2) in Alaska followed by the Niigata earthquake

(M = 7.5) in Japan attracted the attention of many researchers on the phenomenon of soil

liquefaction.

It is found that liquefaction was the major cause of damage to the port facilities and

settlement of pavements in Kobe port during 1995 Kobe earthquake. 2001 Bhuj earthquake

caused significant damage due to liquefaction, and reconnaissance study just after the

earthquake showed that liquefaction occurred in area of more than 15,000 m2. The extent

of damage caused by liquefaction can be substantial, which is observed from the recent

past earthquakes. Hence, it is essential to evaluate the liquefaction potential of a city or a

region, which is seismically active.

Northeast region of India comes under zone V as per IS: 1893 (2002), and seismic

activities in this region are very high. Many great earthquakes had occurred in this region.

For example, 1897 Great Assam earthquake and 1950 Assam earthquake are few of them.

During 1897 Great Assam earthquake, liquefaction was observed at many places in Assam.

Although it was great earthquake and large area of liquefaction was observed, it was found

that the extent of liquefaction-induced damage was very less.

It might be due to the fact that the infrastructural facilities and population density were

very less at that time. But in the present scenario, significant development has been taking

place in this region, in particular Assam. Assam has many oil refineries, industries, and

advanced infrastructural facilities. Hence, the seismic risk of Assam in the present day is

very high, and the degree of damage would be very high, if such great earthquake occurs

again. Guwahati is a major city in the northeastern territory, at which all the developmental

activities are concentrated now. This city has population of 0.81 million, very important

structures such as multistoried buildings, flyovers, retaining walls, and sports centers. So it

is very important to assess the liquefaction potential of this city, which will guide the

design engineer to take up suitable measures, if required. Hence, the liquefaction analysis

is carried out to find out the factor of safety against liquefaction (FSL) using 100 boreholes

data, and the results are presented in this paper.

2 Methods of evaluation

Global research on causes and effects of liquefaction was accelerated after the 1964

Niigata and Alaska earthquakes. The analysis of evaluation of liquefaction potential of a

soil deposit involves the characterization of the intensity of seismic loading that the soil

will be subjected to and the characterization of the liquefaction resistance of the soil. By

characterizing both loading and resistance in common terms, the two can be compared to

determine the liquefaction potential of the soil. A number of approaches to evaluate

potential for initiation of liquefaction have been developed over the past three decades.

There are two broad groups of analysis. The first group (Seed and Idriss 1971; Seed

1979; Seed et al. 1975, 1983) involves estimating the shear stress level likely to develop

in the field under a certain design earthquake. By comparing the induced shear level and

the liquefaction resistance, liquefiable soil zones are identified. The second group of

analysis is based on field observations of performance of sites subjected to earthquakes

in the past. Data on earthquake characteristics and soil resistance measured with standard

penetration or cone penetration test are compiled to establish an empirical relationship

for new sites.

123

Nat Hazards (2012) 63:449460 451

In the original simplified procedure given by Seed and Idriss (1971) and Seed et al.

(1975) simplified procedure, considering the soil column as a rigid body excited by the

seismic loading at the base, the shear stress generated in the soil column was calcu-

lated. In reality, soil behaves as a deformable body instead of as a rigid one. Hence,

the rigid body shear stress is reduced with a correction factor or stress reduction factor

(rd) to give the deformable body shear stress and measures the attenuation of peak

shear stress with depth due to the nonelastic behavior of soil. A factor of 0.65 is then

typically employed to reduce the (single, one time) peak cyclic stress to get the

equivalent uniform cyclic shear stress. Thus, in the simplified procedure, the equiv-

alent uniform cyclic shear stress induced by an earthquake is computed using the

following formula:

amax

savg 0:65 rv rd 1

g

When this equivalent uniform cyclic shear stress is normalized by the initial effective

overburden stress, the result is an estimate of the equivalent uniform cyclic stress ratio

(CSR) as:

amax ch

CSR 0:65 rd 2

g r0v

The values of CSR calculated using Eq. (2) pertain to the equivalent uniform shear

stress induced by the earthquake ground motions generated by an earthquake having a

moment magnitude M. It has been customary to adjust the values of CSR calculated by Eq.

(2), so that the adjusted values of CSR would pertain to the equivalent uniform shear stress

induced by the earthquake ground motions generated by an earthquake having a moment

magnitude M = 7.5, that is,(CSR)M=7.5. Accordingly, the values of (CSR)M=7.5 are given

by:

CSR rv amax rd

CSRM7:5 0:65 0 3

MSF rv g MSF

where MSF is magnitude scaling factor. The magnitude scaling factor, MSF, accounts for

earthquake magnitudes different from Mw = 7.5. The magnitude scaling factor, MSF, has

been used to adjust the induced CSR during earthquake magnitude (M = 8.1) to an

equivalent CSR for an earthquake magnitude, M = 7.5. The MSF is thus defined as:

CSRM

MSF 4

CSRM7:5

Thus, MSF provides an approximate representation of the effects of shaking duration or

equivalent number of stress cycles. Values of magnitude scaling factors were derived by

combining correlations of the number of equivalent uniform cycles versus earthquake

magnitude, and laboratory-based relations between the cyclic stress ratios required to cause

liquefaction and the number of uniform stress cycles. The shear stress induced at any point

in a level soil deposits during an earthquake is primarily due to the vertical propagation of

shear waves in the deposit. These stresses are particularly dependent on the earthquake

ground motion characteristics, the shear wave velocity profile of site, and the dynamic soil

properties. Idriss (1999), in extending the work of Golesorkhi (1989), performed several

hundred parametric site response analyses and concluded that the parameter rd could be

123

452 Nat Hazards (2012) 63:449460

adequately expressed as a function of depth and earthquake magnitude (M), which are used

in the present study.

Cyclically loaded laboratory test data indicate that liquefaction resistance increases with

increasing confining stress. The rate of increase, however, is nonlinear. To account for the

nonlinearity between CRR and effective overburden pressure, Seed et al. (1983) introduced

the correction factor Kr to extrapolate the simplified procedure to soil layers with over-

burden pressures [100 kPa. Cyclically loaded, isotropically consolidated triaxial com-

pression tests on sand specimens were used to measure CRR for high-stress conditions and

develop Kr values. By taking the ratio of CRR for various confining pressures to the CRR

determined for approximately 100 kPa (1 atm.), Seed (1983) developed the original Kr

correction curve. Other investigators have added data and suggested modifications to better

define Kr for engineering practice. The Kr factor is normally applied to the capacity side of

the analysis during design, but it must also be used to convert the site CSR to a common

0

rv value for the empirical derivation of a CRR-N1 60 curve. This is accomplished as:

rv amax rd 1

CSRM7:5;r1 0:65 5

r0v g MSF Kr

0

Such that the values of CSR correspond to an equivalent rv of 1 atm, and thus, the

0

liquefaction correlation also corresponds to an equivalent rv of 1 atm. The equation for Kr

given by Idriss and Boulanger (2006) is:

0

r

Kr 1 Cr ln v 1:0 6

pa

in which

1

Cr 0:3 7

18:9 17:3DR

where pa is normally taken as 100 kPa and DR is the relative density index.

Idriss and Boulanger (2006) re-evaluated correlations between N1 60 and DR for the

purpose of liquefaction evaluations and recommended the following expressions for clean

sands:

r

N1 60

DR 8

46

Idriss and Boulanger (2006) subsequently expressed the coefficient Cr in terms of

N1 60 as,

1

Cr p 0:3 9

18:9 2:55 N1 60

with N1 60 limited to a maximum values of 37. The equations given by Idriss and

Boulanger (2006) are used in the present study.

the standard penetration test (SPT), beginning with efforts in Japan to differentiate between

liquefiable and nonliquefiable conditions in 1964 Niigata earthquake. Subsequent

123

Nat Hazards (2012) 63:449460 453

investigations of individual case histories where surface evidence of liquefaction was

observed. The procedures recommended by Seed and his Coworkers (Seed and Idriss 1971;

Seed et al. 1983, 1984, 1985) to obtain and adjust the SPT blow count and to obtain the

values of CRR are particularly note worthy as they have set the standard for almost three

decades of subsequent engineering practice. A revised boundary curve was proposed by

Idriss and Boulanger (2006), and this boundary curve can be conveniently expressed in

analytical equation for determining the CRR based on SPT results as follows:

( )

N1 60cs N1 60cs 2 N1 60cs 3 N1 60cs 4

CRR exp 2:8 10

14:1 126 23:6 25:4

where N1 60cs is the clean-sand-corrected N-value. The use of these equations provides a

convenient means for calculating the cyclic stress ratio required to cause liquefaction for a

cohesionless soil with any fine content. In order to obtain equivalent, clean-sand-corrected

N-values or N1 60cs recommended by Idriss and Boulanger (2006) are used in the present

analysis.

Several factors in addition to fines content and grain characteristics influence SPT

results. When determining the SPT N-value to be used as outlined in the NCEER 1997

Liquefaction procedure, a series of correction factors are recommended by NCEER 1997,

which are incorporated in the present analysis. SPT penetration resistances are routinely

0

normalized to an equivalent rv =1 atmosphere to obtain quantities that more uniquely relate

0

to the relative density, DR, of sand (i.e., no longer depend on rv ). One of the most

123

454 Nat Hazards (2012) 63:449460

Fig. 3 Spatial distribution of average Nvalue

123

Nat Hazards (2012) 63:449460 455

seismic purposes (IBC 2000) Range of N Site class

N\15 E

15\N\50 D

N [ 50 C

Fig. 4 Comparison of FSL estimated by Seed et al. (1975, 1983) and Idriss and Boulanger (2006)

commonly used expressions for the overburden correction factor proposed by Idriss and

Boulanger (2006) is used, which is given below:

a q

pa

CN 0 1:7; a 0:784 0:0768 N1 60 11

rv

CRR

FSL 12

CSRM7:5;r1

It is well known that if FSL is greater than 1.0, the soil is safe against liquefaction

potential, but if FSL is less than 1.0, then the soil is susceptible to liquefaction.

123

456 Nat Hazards (2012) 63:449460

Fig. 5 Variation of FSL along the depth for all boreholes considered

Evaluation of liquefaction potential is done for Guwahati city using hundred borehole data

collected from Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority (GMDA). These locations

scattered in an area of about 9 km by 7 km, respectively, along with river Brahmaputra as

shown in Fig. 1. The N values at every location have been determined at an equal interval

of 1.5 m up to a maximum depth of 15 m. At some locations, SPT has been done up to a

maximum depth of 14 m and also up to maximum depth of 20 m, respectively. To illus-

trate variation of standard penetration resistance of soils with depth, two samples of

123

Nat Hazards (2012) 63:449460 457

0.6

-1 001.9 .6

0.5 .8 .70 0.3

0.7 01.980 0.3

0. 0.

5 4

0.3

0.4 0.6 0. 3

3

0.5

0.

0 0. 4 0.3

0.3

5

0.4 Silpukhuri Chandmari

0.

0.4 BRAHMAPUTRA RIVER

1 0.70.5

6

0.

Shukleshwar

0.9

0.6 0.3

1 0.4 0.8

1

0.8

0.4

0. 3

0.

00 67

0.

.5.4

0.9 0Bharalmukh

.5 0.3

0.7 0.3 0.

2 Kamakhya Temple GHYRS0.4 3 0. 5

0.8 0.6 0.5 0.3

Distance (km)

1

0.7 0.4

0.9

0.80.6 0.3

1

3 1 0.3

0.9

9

0.6

0.

GS Road

0.2

0. 5

0.8

0.7

0.

4

0. 3

1 05.7

0.8

0.4

0.3

0.9 0.8

0.0.6 . 7

1 0.9 0.8

0

5 0.6

5

0.9

1

1

1 Dispur 0.4

0.9

3

0.

0.5

1

0. 0.6

6

7

.8

0.5

0.7

1 0

0.9

7 0.9

0.4

0.8 0.8

0. 7

0.6 0.4

6

0.

ISBT

0.5

0.4

8

6 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6

Distance (km)

N-value profile at locations 1 and 3 are shown in Fig. 2. The average standard penetration

at all the boreholes can be computed by the expression as given below:

resistance (N)

Pn

di

N n i1

P 13

i1 d i =Ni

where di is the thickness of each layer and n is the total number of layers. Figure 3 shows

the spatial distribution of average N-value calculated for Guwahati city. High N can be

observed near Chandmari area. Many building codes use N for classifying a site for

purposes of incorporating local site conditions in estimation of design ground motion. The

site classification based on average N value given by IBC (2000) is presented in Table 1.

As per IBC (2000), E-type sites with low N are susceptible to liquefaction. Out of 100

boreholes in Guwahati city, 92 boreholes are classified as E-type, 7 belong to D-type, and

the remaining one with N greater than 50 can be classified as a C-type site. It is observed

that most of the sites in Guwahati city belong to E-type and hence vulnerable to lique-

faction failure. Since most of the sites in the Guwahati city are susceptible to liquefaction,

further analysis on evaluation of factor of safety against liquefaction potential is must and

accordingly carried out.

The peak ground acceleration recorded in 1897 Assam earthquake for Guwahati city

recommended by IS Code is 0.36 g and has been considered in the present analysis. This

PGA is consistent for an 8.1-magnitude earthquake occurring on a fault at an epicentral

123

458 Nat Hazards (2012) 63:449460

0. 5 0.6 0.80.9 1

-1 0.7

0. 4

0.5

0.80.7

0.9 1

0. 3 0. 4 0.6 0.6

0.5 0.8

0.

0.3 1.9

00.7

4

0

0.5

0. 3 Silpukhuri Chandmari

0. . 0.91

0.

00. BRAHMAPUTRA RIVER

4

8.9 0. 3

0.4 08 7

0.4 0. 3

0.5 Shukleshwar 0.5

0.6 0

0.3

1 0.7 0.6 0.3

0.5

6 0.3

Bharalmukh

0. 0.4 0.. 0.5

0.3

1 0.8 4 5

0.

4

0.9 0.5

2 Kamakhya 0.6 GHYRS

0.4

Temple 0.7 0.4

Distance (km)

0. 8 0

0.7.5

0.4

1 0.9

3

0.

6

0.6 1

1

0.

0.8

0.5 GS Road

0.4

0.4 10.5

0.9

0.8

4 0.9

0.7 0.

3

0.60

0.5

..87

0.

9 0. 7 0.0.9

8

5 1 0.7.6 0.7

0. 6 0.05

0.9

0.6

0 0.3 .4

1 1

18

0. 0. 3

Dispur

0.9 0.4

6 0.

8

0.9

7 0. 0.5

0.8

1

0.4

1 0.5

7 0.9

0. 8

0.7

1

0. 7

ISBT 0.6 0.6 .5 0.4

0.5 0

8 04

6 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6

Distance (km)

Fig. 7 Contour of factor of safety against liquefaction potential (FSL) at a depth of 7.5 m

distance of 50 km from Guwahati city. The factor of safety against liquefaction is deter-

mined for all the hundred boreholes using Seed et al. (1975, 1983) and Idriss and Boul-

anger (2006). Although the factor of safety against liquefaction is evaluated for all

boreholes using both methods, Fig. 4 shows the variation of factor of safety estimated by

both methods for one borehole only, just for the sake of comparison. It is observed from the

figure that the approach by Seed et al. (1975, 1983) overestimates the factor of safety

against liquefaction by 1020 % at shallow depth, and by about 40 % at deeper depths,

thus underestimating the liquefaction potential. This observation is consistent with other

boreholes also, but only the degree of underestimation varies. This might be due to the

errors associated with stress reduction coefficient, magnitude scaling factor, and other

important correction factors which were not rigorously considered by the Seed et al. (1975,

1983). Hence, the factor of safety of all boreholes estimated by the recent approach (Idriss

and Boulanger 2006) is presented herein. Figure 5 presents the variation of factor of safety

against liquefaction of all boreholes (100) considered in the present study. It can be

observed from the figure is that the factor of safety against liquefaction for all the four

boreholes is very much less than 1 up to 15 m depth for most of the boreholes except few

boreholes. The exception could be due to the presence of rock stratum at few locations.

This indicates that most of the locations in Guwahati city will liquefy if an 8.1-magnitude

earthquake strikes again.

Figures 6, 7, and 8 present the typical contour of factor of safety against liquefaction at

3.0, 7.5, and 12.0 m depths. One can observe from Fig. 6 that the factor of safety at a depth

of 3 m varies from 0.1 to 0.5 for the design PGA and these values are very much less than

123

Nat Hazards (2012) 63:449460 459

-1

Chandmari 0.3

06.8 BRAHMAPUTRA

0.4 RIVER 0.4

0.6

0.7

0. 5

0.

0.8 0.6

0.7 0.5

0.5

0.9 0. 5

3

8

0.7

0.

0.

00.8

0.7

Shukleshwar 0.3

1.9

0.4

6 0.4

0.8

0.6

1

1 10.9 0.6 10. 9

0.8

0.5 6

0.

4

0.4

Bharalmukh

0.30.

0.5 0.

0.

3 0.4

0.5 0.9 1

0.8 0.7

0.70.0

2 Kamakhya 0.4

0GHYRS

Distance (km)

0.

.6 0.5

1

65

10.9

0.8

4

Temple 0. 8

0.9

0.8 0.7 0.7

1

0.9 0.6

0.4

0.6

0.9 . 3

1 0.9

1 0

3 0.6

5

0.

0.7

0.8GS Road

0.4

0.7

0.8

4

0. 7 0.

0.8

00..54 3

0.5

1

0. 8 0.9

0.9

5 0. 7 1 0.9 0.6

1

1 1 0.4

0.9 0. 6Dispur 0.3

0.8

0.

6

7

0.7

0.4 .5 0.7

0.8

0.4

0

0.8

0.5

1

0.3

0.9

0.6

1 0.8

0.9

0.5

7 0. 6

0.7

0.6 0. 6

0.4

ISBT 0.5

0.4

8 03 04

6 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6

Distance (km)

1. Similarly, factor of safety at a depth of 7.5 m shown in Fig. 7 also varies between 0.1

and 0.7, which is less than 1.0. Similar observation is seen in Fig. 8 for depth 12.0 m also,

but because of the presence of less data after 12 m depth contours are not very accurate.

From the contours of FSL shown in Figs. 6, 7, and 8, it can be observed that the factor of

safety at all depths is less than one, which means that most of the borehole locations

considered in Guwahati city area is susceptible to liquefaction for an event with PGA of

0.36 g. It is found from the soil exploration that the soil in Guwahati city is predominantly

silty clay having fine content (60100 %) out of which the silt is more than 70 %.

Although the fine content is high, the city is susceptible to liquefaction, because of higher

silt content soil. Hence, a great care is required in selecting the suitable type of foundation

or remedial soil improvement measures for various structures to be constructed in

Guwahati city.

4 Conclusions

The factor of safety against liquefaction of Guwahati city is calculated using 100 boreholes

data, and it is found that the factor of safety against liquefaction potential is less than 1.0

for all the boreholes considered. It is also observed that the total thickness of soil up to

15 m is susceptible to liquefaction, which means that Guwahati city area is most vulner-

able to liquefaction-related hazards during future earthquakes of magnitude more than 8.1.

The developed contour maps can readily be used to evaluate the liquefaction potential of

123

460 Nat Hazards (2012) 63:449460

construction sites in Guwahati city, and suitable foundation or remedial soil improvement

measures need to be adopted.

References

stresses in sandy soils. PhD Thesis, University of California, Berkely, p 395

IBC (2000) The international building code. International Code Council, Inc., USA

Idriss IM (1999) An update to the Seed-Idriss simplified procedure for evaluating liquefaction potential. In:

Proceedings of the TRB Workshop on New Approaches to Liquefaction, Publication No. FHWA-RD-

99-165, Federal Highway Administration, 1999

Idriss IM, Boulanger RW (2006) Semi-empirical procedures for evaluating liquefaction potential during

earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 26:115130

IS (18932002) Indian standard code of practice on criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures

Part 1: General provisions and buildings, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi

Seed HB (1979) Soil liquefaction and cyclic mobility evaluation for level ground during earthquakes.

J Geotech Eng ASCE, 105(GT2):201255 Paper 14380

Seed HB (1983) Earthquake resistant design of earth dam. In: Proceedings of symposium on seismic design

of embankment and caverns, Philadelphia, ASCE, New York, pp 4164

Seed HB, Idriss IM (1971) Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential. J Soil Mech

Found Div ASCE 97(9):12491273

Seed HB, Idriss IM, Banerjee N (1975) Representation of irregular stress time histories by equivalent

uniform stress series in liquefaction analyses. EERC 75-29, Earthquake Engineering Research Center,

University of California, Berkeley

Seed HB, Idriss IM, Arnago I (1983) Evaluation of liquefaction potential using field performance data.

J Geotech Eng ASCE 109(3):458483

Seed HB, Tokimatsu K, Harder LF, Chung RM (1984) The influence of SPT procedures on soil liquefaction

resistance evaluations. Report No. UCB/EERC-84/15, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ.

of California, Berkeley, California

Seed HB, Tokimatsu K, Harder LF, Chung RM (1985) Influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction

resistance evaluations. J Geotech Eng ASCE 111(12):14251445

123

- Definition of FinesЗагружено:Anonymous i04hl6Zzx
- Deconvolution of Surface Motions from the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence for use in Nonlinear Effective Stress Site Response AnalysesЗагружено:zhangchao
- PHIVOLCS Earthquake Intensity Scale.docxЗагружено:Alcazar Renz Justine
- EarthquakesЗагружено:Marina Mohd Shahabudin
- Characteristics of Ground Motions Response Spectra From Recent Large EarthquakesЗагружено:redpol
- Abstract ShanShanЗагружено:張恩維
- RCC Quations and AnswerЗагружено:Md Mukarram Reza
- ClayЗагружено:Paolo Manansala
- Gempa bumiЗагружено:amalia rosa
- Earth Quake ArchitectureЗагружено:HariharanSwaminathan
- 0604610_Sonic Drilling How Does It WorkЗагружено:Anonymous FGzNDzIeJ
- 12_Fathani Etal -Final Updated1Загружено:Map Kanguroo
- Extended Abstract 3.44.docЗагружено:Kazim Mehdi
- Kashmir EarthquakeЗагружено:Vineet Kedia
- 29 Japan Cap1Road CodeЗагружено:colorednoise
- Soil Stabilization.2Загружено:Ojenomo Patwhite Bofo
- Chapter 5 FaultsЗагружено:Aijaz Ali
- Survey About EarthquakesЗагружено:Sanguis Sulphureus
- Disaster ManagementЗагружено:Navin Madhu Kiran B
- Attenuation Relations of Strong Ground Motion in JapanЗагружено:Alex VC
- 29Загружено:Pragya Roy
- wuЗагружено:Huy Hiep Nguyen
- GAEE2013-Soil-Properties-II_AP.pdfЗагружено:Naveen BP
- UntitledЗагружено:api-56039091
- 4Загружено:Bimal Thapa
- Spatiotemporal Chaos Into the Hellenic Seismogenesis. Evidence for a Global...Загружено:Ilan Gargon
- Chapter_No.3_2013_10_05_14_23_57_037Загружено:Abdul Wahab Khan
- Seismic Performance of Cylindrical Elevated Water TanksЗагружено:VageeshaS.Mathada
- 58206918-Reading-Writing-Gr-2.pdfЗагружено:sayamaahmed
- VolcanoesЗагружено:Rajumohiuddin Mahi

- CEC6-2Загружено:Aamir Tauqeer
- Duman 2014Загружено:mm
- Civil Soil Liquefaction ReportЗагружено:محمد عبدالرازق عبدالله
- ayothiraman2012.pdfЗагружено:mm
- liquefactionmaheshrajbhatt-160701094328Загружено:mm
- Civil Engineering Seminar Topics_ Soil LiquefactionЗагружено:mm
- 23_56Загружено:mm
- Financial Terms and ConditionЗагружено:mm
- presentationonliquefationpvkkbyraghavendra-130401154926-phpapp02Загружено:mm
- Liquefaction During 1988 Earthquakes and a Case StudyЗагружено:mm
- Application Form GCSS (1)Загружено:Khairul Faiz
- assignment-3-bearing-capacity.docxЗагружено:mm
- Liquefactiongeofinal 141207104344 Conversion Gate02Загружено:Willy Kuswanto
- SOIL MECHANICS.pdfЗагружено:Aziz Sofi
- Foundation Engineering CourseЗагружено:amandeepsuperan
- 156732781 Foundation e NotesЗагружено:mm
- V2-0_05Загружено:mm
- nhess-12-2759-2012.pdfЗагружено:mm
- liquifactionofsoilbyliju-140710112205-phpapp01Загружено:mm
- liquefactionofsoil-161004072322Загружено:mm
- liquefactionfinal-150624092216-lva1-app6892.pptxЗагружено:mm
- Liquefactionfinal 150624092216 Lva1 App6892Загружено:mm
- Liquefaction Hazard Zonation for the City of BhujЗагружено:mm
- DMAN13028FU1Загружено:mm
- GDP-9bمهم.pdfЗагружено:محمد عبدالرازق عبدالله

- 6th Southeast Region PPT June 5- 16 NewЗагружено:JUAN CARLOS
- GWYB 2014-15 U.PЗагружено:ashuein
- Tumuli and associated features from the western Deccan Volcanic Province, IndiaЗагружено:Purushottam Gupta
- ECOLOGY Handouts November 2016Загружено:Eljunem Felix
- Aqueduct introductionЗагружено:sudarsancivil
- gf576 causes of desertificationЗагружено:api-125273362
- GlobalTectonics_KearyAndVine.pdfЗагружено:Rafael Almeida
- small dam weirs and gabions.pdfЗагружено:shahid ali
- Flood Mitigation in Hill TorrentsЗагружено:yasir_mushtaq786
- Liquefaction IIT Roorkee Dec 26 2012Загружено:Saurav Rukhaiyar
- Rocks and Minerals Picture BookЗагружено:Jason
- 6th Grade Science End of Year ExamЗагружено:Michelle Talley
- What Are The Underlying Facts Between Plants And Soils?Загружено:Jetter Sam Lagaras Ramido
- Ranchi Summer CapitalЗагружено:ravi_rpc
- Seafloor Spreading Theory Definition of Seafloor Spreading Theory in the Free Online EncyclopediaЗагружено:Jam Sanchez
- At the Mountains of MadnessЗагружено:NotCarlos TheJeda
- What is earthquake.docxЗагружено:ZzaiRra
- RED BookЗагружено:Gay Dugang Ibañez
- Jasprica_Caric_Biologia_2002Загружено:Stanka Pitic
- 14 Erna ImprovementЗагружено:terry_cmh4452
- SOP 06v4 Subsurface-Sampling FinalЗагружено:Rahmat Randi Al Bangkawy
- Geological Classification of StonesЗагружено:Muhafeez Goolab
- Curriculum Vitae Dr.thamerЗагружено:Abdullah Omer
- Marine Isotope Stages - Building a Paleoclimatic History of the World 1-2Загружено:Sada Geo
- Consti NotesЗагружено:Yen055
- Subsurface Water PresentationЗагружено:Josal Sinon
- Soil Weathering (1)Загружено:Silvrie
- Plane Surveying DiffЗагружено:Mohammed Zoheb Nawaz
- Landscape of Angkor Wat RedefinedЗагружено:Bun Hak Lim
- igneous rocks imagesЗагружено:api-289985616

## Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.

Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.

Отменить можно в любой момент.